I wonder if Silicon Valley refuses to cooperate with the military if it won't mean that America won't be able to compete with China and Russia strategically in the long term. Those countries presumably have no problems getting their tech industry to cooperate. Russia having an advanced form of AI-weaponry without any form of MAD-doctrine is probably not the best scenario.
Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
101–110 of 516 posts
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#102[deleted]
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#103Somewhat related: I’d be thrilled to work on a contract with the U.S. Dept. of Defense, willing to seek clerences etc.
Where should I be applying? Do the companies offering these jobs compensate comparably to companies working on other stuff?
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you sincerely believe that us dropping bombs in the middle east is "protecting American lives"? If anything, it's spawned a whole generation of terrorists who hate the US for destroying their country. The best way to protect Americans would be for our country to get out of expensive, overseas wars and invest that money in healthcare and ending the drug war, things that actually kill Americans in large numbers.
That is a very naive, but understandable, viewpoint. Take the time to learn about how important America’s military is to global stability: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/16/world/trump-m...
For some value of stability, I guess.
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you sincerely believe that us dropping bombs in the middle east is "protecting American lives"? If anything, it's spawned a whole generation of terrorists who hate the US for destroying their country. The best way to protect Americans would be for our country to get out of expensive, overseas wars and invest that money in healthcare and ending the drug war, things that actually kill Americans in large numbers.
That is a very naive, but understandable, viewpoint. Take the time to learn about how important America’s military is to global stability: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/16/world/trump-m...
And the New York Time's view on this issue is also understandable, but I sincerely believe that had it not been for US and its ventures abroad, we(over here in Europe) wouldn't need defending. Like when US wants to build anti-missile defense systems in Europe, and goes "look, we're just trying to save you from strikes from Middle East guys!" - great, but why would Middle East strike Poland for example? Oh that's right, because we're participating in every US war in that region. Great.
It's basically US stirring trouble all over the world and then saying "look how great we are for defending peace across the globe!".
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#106Every company I apply to is told during the interview process that I will not work on military projects, and that I would probably leave the company if they chose to take on a military contract. If you have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them then no-one is the worse off; I’ve yet to be turned down for a job over it and, somewhat the opposite, companies seem to appreciate frankness.
> If you have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them
Problematic here is that I might not be aware of all my moral limits until I encounter a situation they might be relevant to.
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#107I wonder if Silicon Valley refuses to cooperate with the military if it won't mean that America won't be able to compete with China and Russia strategically in the long term. Those countries presumably have no problems getting their tech industry to cooperate. Russia having an advanced form of AI-weaponry without any form of MAD-doctrine is probably not the best scenario.
> Russia having an advanced form of AI-weaponry without any form of MAD-doctrine is probably not the best scenario.
They're a very long way from there, see for example this: http://defence-blog.com/army/combat-tests-syria-brought-ligh... (which also happens to be my latest separate post submission). People tend to over-estimate the technical prowess of the Russians, there's only so much that the military of a country with ~160 million people can do to technically compete against both the US and the EU.
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#108This reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Homer leaves the nuclear power plant and gets a job with a new, great company. Great pay, lots of vacation, plenty of benefits, a great boss, and so on. The gag was that the boss was a super villain, and all through the show there was a James Bond kind of attack on his hidden base while Homer worried about work-related matters. The thrust of the joke was that you can be doing anything -- as long as your employees are happy at what they think the situation is.
There's a hard, cold fact that we technology people hate to keep in our heads: once you make or record something, you lose control over how it's used. Whether user telemetry from you app or some code Google puts together to help users, once it's created, it's gone. The only reasonable thing to assume is that whatever we create or record will be used in the worst way possible. To think otherwise, at least to me, looks like a fool's game. We fool ourselves -- probably because the alternative is too difficult to contemplate.
Applying a Simpon's joke to a real-world situation is probably dumb, but the lesson here seems pretty clear: tell people what they want to hear and build what you want. The world ends up in the same exact situation as being a true believer and building what you want. There's no effective difference between all the big tech companies tracking you like lab rat and then intelligence services stealing the data -- and the big tech companies giving the data freely to the intelligence services. Yes, one may feel good inside better than the other, but hell, if something I disagree with is going to happen, I'd much rather the people involved be honest about it than preach to me how good their motives were.
You make it or record it, you're making and recording it for everybody. The only mystery is how long it takes to get out.
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you sincerely believe that us dropping bombs in the middle east is "protecting American lives"? If anything, it's spawned a whole generation of terrorists who hate the US for destroying their country. The best way to protect Americans would be for our country to get out of expensive, overseas wars and invest that money in healthcare and ending the drug war, things that actually kill Americans in large numbers.
That is a very naive, but understandable, viewpoint. Take the time to learn about how important America’s military is to global stability: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/16/world/trump-m...
Yours is equally naive, but understandable viewpoint :) If anything, America's role is destabilising (see attacking Iraq on false pretenses that destabilized Middle East and helped ISIS rise to power). The same goes for other wars waged by US: they are started to protect American economic interests, long term consequences be damned.
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#110Every company I apply to is told during the interview process that I will not work on military projects, and that I would probably leave the company if they chose to take on a military contract. If you have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them then no-one is the worse off; I’ve yet to be turned down for a job over it and, somewhat the opposite, companies seem to appreciate frankness.
If you contribute to open source software then you’re contributing to military projects.
And if you contribute to science, you're contributing to military projects.
If you've taught kindergarten or middle school, you've probably helped raise a soldier.
Yeah ok.